US7769727B2 - Resolving update-delete conflicts - Google Patents
Resolving update-delete conflicts Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US7769727B2 US7769727B2 US11/444,180 US44418006A US7769727B2 US 7769727 B2 US7769727 B2 US 7769727B2 US 44418006 A US44418006 A US 44418006A US 7769727 B2 US7769727 B2 US 7769727B2
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- entity
- replica
- deletion
- deleted
- conflict
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active, expires
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F16/00—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
- G06F16/20—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor of structured data, e.g. relational data
- G06F16/27—Replication, distribution or synchronisation of data between databases or within a distributed database system; Distributed database system architectures therefor
- G06F16/273—Asynchronous replication or reconciliation
Definitions
- the technical field generally is related to information storage and retrieval and more specifically to handling synchronization conflicts.
- An update-delete conflict refers to a conflict arising, such as, during the synchronization of two devices, in which an entity is deleted on one device and the entity is updated on another device.
- PDA personal digital assistant
- the user's secretary could, on the user's desk top computer, add items to the agenda of the meeting.
- Current attempted synchronization solutions include resolving the conflict in favor of the deletion. That is, the entity is deleted on both devices. Another solution treats the deletion as final and never detects or reports the conflict. Yet another attempted solution is to recreate a new entity which leads to problems such as duplicate entities.
- An object of a typical synchronization system is to have all replicas converge to consistent versions. Convergence can be problematic when resolving update-delete conflicts. For example, in a distributed system having many devices, it is possible for one device to delete an entity and other devices to make independent changes to the entity. Current synchronization systems do not track the independent changes and ensure that all devices, including the device on which the entity was deleted, consistently converge.
- An update-delete conflict between an entity in one replica and the entity in another replica can be resolved in favor of either the update or the deletion. Resolving the conflict in favor of the deletion results in deleting the entity in both replicas. Resolving a conflict leads to all replicas in the community picking up the resolution.
- a synchronization (sync) community includes all replicas that exchange changes. When the conflict is resolved in favor of the update, the deletion is treated as though it were erroneous. When the conflict is resolved in favor of the update, the deleted entity is resurrected. Resurrecting an entity comprises recreating the deleted entity.
- the updater receives notification (referred to as a tombstone) that the entity has been deleted. If the conflict resolution policy favors the update, the updater recreates a copy of the entity and sends the copy along with additional information to aid the deleter in resurrecting the entity.
- the deleter updates the deleted entity based on the version of the entity provided by the updater, which is the version of the entity prior to deletion. In order for the entities in all replicas to converge to the same version, information pertaining to previous changes on which a current change is based, and a flag marking an entity for resurrection, is provided. Update-delete conflicts are resolvable in accordance with various resolution policies such as the update always winning, the deletion always winning, changes occurring on a particular device always winning, and the most recent event winning, for example.
- FIG. 1 depicts an example update-delete conflict between two replicas.
- FIG. 2 depicts various example conflict resolutions for the scenario depicted in FIG. 1 .
- FIG. 3 depicts another example update-delete conflict between two replicas.
- FIG. 4 depicts various example conflict resolutions for the scenario depicted in FIG. 3 .
- FIG. 5 depicts yet another example update-delete conflict between two replicas.
- FIG. 6 depicts various example conflict resolutions for the scenario depicted in FIG. 5 .
- FIG. 7 depicts still another update-delete conflict between two replicas.
- FIG. 8 depicts various example conflict resolutions for the scenario depicted in FIG. 7 .
- FIG. 9 illustrates an example resolution of an update-delete conflict involving three replicas.
- FIG. 10 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- FIG. 11 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving an update-delete conflict in favor of the update.
- FIG. 12 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving an update-delete conflict in favor of the remote replica.
- FIG. 13 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving an update-delete conflict in favor of the local replica.
- FIG. 14 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving an update-delete conflict in favor of the most recent event.
- FIG. 15 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving an update-delete conflict in favor of the deletion.
- FIG. 16 is a diagram of an exemplary computing device for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- Synchronization is the process of maintaining two or more data stores to be identical under some series of changes. For example, it is not uncommon for a user to possess more than one computing device.
- a user can have a desktop computer, a server and/or a laptop computer for work or home use.
- the user also could have a portable device, such as a palm-top computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a pocket PCs, a mobile phone, or the like.
- PDA personal digital assistant
- pocket PCs a mobile phone, or the like.
- data is copied to and between multiple devices. Often, when data is modified in one device, synchronization is required to update the other devices. This typically involves synchronization.
- Replicas can reside on one or multiple devices.
- a replica can comprise, for example, a copy of a contact in an address book, a file in a file directory, a folder in a file directory, or the like.
- a replica comprises at least one unit of storable information referred to as an entity.
- entities are accessible to an operating system and have a basic set of properties that are commonly supported across all objects exposed to an end-user or application.
- WINDOWS® such as WinFS (WINDOWS® Future Storage) for example, an entity can comprise an item or a fragment.
- WinFS parlance an item is a data unit stored in a WinFS store and a fragment is a portion of an item.
- a change unit is the smallest portion of an entity that is tracked during synchronization.
- a document such as a MICROSOFT WORD® document.
- the document could comprise entities in the form of paragraphs. That is, an entity could be defined as a paragraph.
- a change unit could be defined as a sentence.
- the smallest unit that would be tracked during synchronization would be a sentence.
- Each time a change is made to a change unit, such as a sentence in the previous example, the change is assigned a new change unit version number. Version numbers are assigned in monotonically increasing order to avoid duplicate numbering.
- notification of the change, including the change unit version is sent to all replicas to ensure consistent convergence between all replicas.
- Synchronization involves making every replica aware of the changes made by other replicas. Synchronization ensures that designated replicas converge to consistent versions.
- conflicts can be detected and resolved.
- One type of conflict referred to herein as an update-delete conflict, occurs when a portion of a replica, on one device has been deleted and the same portion, on another device has been updated. Note that deletion of a whole replica implies removing a device from the synchronization community, it is an irrevocable action and does not lead to conflicts.
- updating a portion of a replica can include moving the portion of the replica.
- a replica e.g., replica A
- another replica e.g., replica B
- entity A can delete entity residing in replica A
- replica B can update the same entity residing in replica B
- replica A can delete entity A and replica B can update one of entity B's children.
- entity B's children are entities.
- replica A can delete a parent entity A and replica B can create a child entity in parent entity B's hierarchy.
- replica A can delete entity A, and replica B can move another entity, into entity B's hierarchy.
- update-delete conflicts can be resolved in favor of either the update or the deletion.
- the deletion is treated as if it were erroneous.
- the deleted entity is resurrected to the updated entity.
- the deleted entity is recreated using the copy of the entity that was received from the other replica during synchronization.
- the entity is restored to the most recent version of the updated entity available.
- the updater side the replica in which the update occurred
- Partial entities are tracked. That is, as described above, a change unit, rather than the entity is tracked. Thus, there may not be enough information to resolve the conflict and resurrect a deleted entity right away.
- a flag is provided indicating that the entity is to be resurrected.
- the resurrection flag is provided along with the indication (referred to as a tombstone) that the entity has been deleted.
- Conflicts can be resolved in accordance with various resolution policies such as, local wins, remote wins, update wins, deletion wins, and most recent wins.
- one replica is considered the local replica and the other replica is considered the remote replica.
- an entity is resurrected at the highest appropriate level in the hierarchy. For example, if an entity has children and the entity is deleted (resulting in the children being deleted), the parent and its children are resurrected.
- WinFS for example, an entity is resurrected, when appropriate, at the compound item level.
- a compound item is a container such that the compound item and all items contained in it form a single unit of consistency.
- All common operations operate on the compound item as a unit.
- the copy operation in the WinFS for example, copies a whole compound item, not merely a portion of the compound.
- An example in which resurrection is accomplished at the compound item level is depicted in the scenario in which one replica deleted an entire compound item and the other replica updated one or more entities of the compound item. In this case, the entire compound item is resurrected. Further, in situations in which the delete is not to the root compound item, all entities below the deleted entity are resurrected. Because the unit of resurrection is the compound item, versions for all entities in the hierarchy are assigned a new deletion version with based on deletion version set to previous deletion version.
- Update-delete conflicts are created on a per entity basis, rather than a per change unit basis. Accordingly, learned knowledge saved as part of these conflicts is indicative of the entire entity.
- a tombstone marked for resurrection is received, if a live entity is present locally, all change units are assigned a new last (most recent) update version. Further, each new version will contain knowledge indicating what the new version is based on.
- Each change unit version will have the previous version set as based on version. The based on version is indicative of the version of the previous update to the change unit. Based on version(s) indicate that the new version is based on a conflict resolution change version given to it.
- the deletion version is not known to the sender, the deleted version is added to the based on deletion version. If a tombstone that is marked for resurrection is present locally, a deletion version is picked deterministically and the based on version includes all original deletion versions.
- replica A can delete its entity E and replica B can update its entity E;
- replica A can delete its entity E and replica B can update one (or more) of E's child entities;
- replica A can delete E and replica B can create a child entity in E's hierarchy; and
- replica A can delete E and replica B can move another entity into E's hierarchy.
- FIG. 1 depicts an example update-delete conflict between two replicas, replica A and replica B.
- Replica A comprises entity E 1 (e.g., item, fragment, link, extension, or the like). Entity E 1 comprises child entity C 1 and child entity C 2 . Child entity C 2 comprises child entity C 3 .
- Replica B comprises the same entity hierarchies as replica A. As depicted in FIG. 1 , replica A has deleted entity E 1 therein (as depicted by the letter “X”) and replica B has updated entity E 1 therein (as depicted by the check mark “ ⁇ ”). The resolution of this update-delete conflict is dependent upon the resolution policy.
- FIG. 2 is a table depicting various example resolution results of the scenario depicted in FIG. 1 .
- replica A sending synchronization information to replica B is depicted by an arrow pointing from A to B (A B). That is, A B indicates synchronization of changes from A to B.
- replica B is considered local and replica A is considered remote when A B.
- the policy is local wins, the entity E 1 remains as updated.
- the resolution policy is remote wins, E 1 is deleted.
- the resolution policy is update wins or delete wins, the results are the same, respectively, as local wins and remote wins.
- replica B sends synchronization information to replica B (B A) replica A is consider local and replica B is considered remote.
- the resolution policy is local wins or delete wins
- E 1 is deleted.
- the resolution policy is remote wins or update wins
- E 1 is marked for resurrection utilizing the previous version as the based on version, and E 1 is resurrected and updated upon convergence.
- FIG. 3 depicts another example update-delete conflict between two replicas, replica A and replica B, in which replica A has deleted entity E 1 (depicted by the letter “X”) and replica B has updated child entity C 1 (depicted by the check mark “ ⁇ ”).
- Replica A comprises entity E 1 .
- Entity E 1 comprises child entity C 1 and child entity C 2 .
- Child entity C 1 comprises child entity C 3 .
- Replica B comprises the same entity hierarchies as replica A.
- the resolution of this update-delete conflict is dependent upon the resolution policy.
- E 1 , C 1 , and C 2 are part of the same compound item. When the conflict is resolved, C 2 stays alive. Only C 1 was updated.
- FIG. 4 is a table depicting various example resolution results of the scenario depicted FIG. 3 .
- replica A sends synchronization information to replica B (A B)
- replica B is local and replica A is remote. If the resolution policy is local wins, E 1 and all of C 1 's parent entities are not deleted. There is no conflict with E 1 . If the resolution policy is remote wins, E 1 and all entities in its hierarchy below are deleted. Also as shown in FIG. 4 , if the resolution policy is update wins or delete wins, the results are the same, respectively, as local wins and remote wins.
- replica B sends synchronization information to replica A (B ⁇ A)
- replica A is local and replica B is remote. If the resolution policy is local wins, E 1 and all entities in its hierarchy below are deleted.
- FIG. 5 is another example update-delete conflict between two replicas, replica A and replica B, in which replica A has deleted entity E 1 (depicted by the letter “X”) and replica B has created a child entity, C 5 in entity C 1 's hierarchy.
- Replica A comprises entity E 1 and entity E 2 .
- Entity E 1 comprises child entity C 1 and child entity C 2 .
- Child entity C 2 comprises child entity C 3 .
- Entity E 2 comprises child entity C 4 in its hierarchy.
- Replica B comprises the same entity hierarchy as replica A, except that child entity C 5 has been added to C 1 's hierarchy. The resolution of this update-delete conflict is dependent upon the resolution policy.
- FIG. 6 is a table depicting various example resolution results of the scenario depicted FIG. 5 .
- replica A sends synchronization information to replica B (A B)
- replica B is local and replica A is remote.
- the resolution policy is local wins, E 1 and all of C 1 's parent entities are not deleted. There is no conflict with E 1 .
- C 5 is added to the hierarchy.
- the resolution policy is remote wins, E 1 and all entities in its hierarchy below are deleted. Also as shown in FIG. 6 , if the resolution policy is update wins or delete wins, the results are the same, respectively, as local wins and remote wins.
- replica B sends synchronization information to replica A (B A)
- replica A is local and replica B is remote.
- FIG. 7 is another update-delete conflict between two replicas, replica A and replica B.
- Replica A comprises entity E 1 and entity E 2 .
- Entity E 1 comprises child entity C 1 .
- Replica B comprises the same entity hierarchies as replica A. Replica A moves entity C 1 into E 2 's hierarchy and replica B deletes entity E 2 .
- FIG. 8 is a table depicting various example resolution results of the scenario depicted FIG. 7 .
- the resolution types include logging the conflict or resolving the conflict by undoing the moves.
- replica A sends synchronization information to replica B (A B)
- the immediate result is that C 1 exists under E 1 and E 2 is deleted.
- E 1 remains alive
- E 2 is deleted
- C 1 exists under E 1 .
- replica B sends synchronization information to replica A
- the immediate results are the E 2 is resurrected and C 1 exists under E 2 .
- E 1 and E 2 are alive and C 1 exists under E 2 .
- other conflict resolution policies described herein such as local wins, remote wins, and most recent event wins, are applicable to the scenario type depicted in FIG. 7 .
- Another conflict resolution policy resolves an update-delete conflict by converging the state of the replicas to be compatible with the most recent event.
- the update/delete times are compared and the most recent event wins.
- the latest delete time could be the time that an ancestor of entity was deleted. Thus if the time an entity in a first replica was update is later than the time the same entity in a second replica was deleted, the update will not win if there was a subsequent update to the entity's ancestor in a compound item in the second replica.
- new versions of change units for deleted entities are assigned.
- the new version contains information about the previous version of the change unit.
- the previous version information is referred to as the “based on version.”
- its tombstone contains a based on version.
- the based on version is useful to facilitate resurrection of a deleted entity. For example, if an update-delete conflict is being resolved on the updater side, the updated change units contain based on versions indicative of the previous update version. If an update-delete conflict is being resolved on the deleter side, the new tombstone version contains a based on version indicative of the version of the entity prior to deletion.
- FIG. 9 illustrates an example resolution of an update-delete conflict involving three replicas, replica A, replica B, and replica C.
- FIG. 9 depicts the synchronization events that occur, leading to convergence of the replicas.
- the first row (row 1 ) in FIG. 9 shows replica A, replica B, and replica C being in synch.
- the knowledge for three change units of an entity is depicted.
- a 10 indicates that in replica A, the most recent version of a change unit in an entity corresponds to a counter value 10 .
- B 15 indicates that in replica B, the most recent version of another change unit, in the same entity, corresponds to counter value 15 .
- C 20 indicates that in replica C, the most recent version of another change unit, in the same entity, corresponds to counter value 20 .
- the counter values keep track of changes to a specific change unit. In an example embodiment, the counter value for a change unit version is incremented each time another version of the change unit is generated.
- replica A updates a change unit resulting in the new version being indicated as A 11 .
- This is depicted as CU:A 11 .
- Replica B deletes a change unit resulting in the new version being indicated as B 16 .
- This is depicted by DV:B 16 .
- Replica A sends synchronization information to replica B, depicted as A B between rows 2 and 3 .
- Row 3 depicts the knowledge in the replicas after A B.
- Replica A and replica C have the same knowledge as prior to A B.
- Replica B which is applying the synchronization operation has received knowledge indicating that a change has occurred in replica A on the same entity that has experienced a deletion in replica B. Thus an update-delete conflict exists.
- the resolution policy for the illustration of FIG. 9 is that the update wins.
- Replica B updates it change unit version A 11 to A 11 , and updates the change unit version B 16 to B 17 .
- B 17 is based on the previous version of the change unit, B 16 . This is depicted by B 17 :(BOV:B 16 ).
- B 17 is marked for resurrection. This is depicted by the asterisk next to B 17 .
- a version can be marked for resurrection by any appropriate means, such as by setting a flag for example.
- B 17 is marked for resurrection to be resurrected to the based on version (which is B 16 in this example).
- replica B sends synchronization information to replica A as shown by A B between rows 3 and 4 .
- the knowledge in replica A at row 4 shows that B 15 has been updated to B 17 , which is based on version B 16 .
- B 17 is not marked for resurrection because the change unit was not deleted in replica A.
- replica A is depicted having the knowledge that the latest version of the change unit is A 12 , which is based on version A 11 ).
- Replica A sends synchronization information to replica B, as depicted by A B between rows 4 and 5 , and row 5 depicts that knowledge in the replicas thereafter.
- Replica B now shows that A 12 is the latest version of the change unit, and that the latest version is based on A 11 .
- replica B sends synchronization information to replica C, as depicted by A B between rows 5 and 6 . Row 6 shows that all replicas are synchronized because the versions of the change units are the same for each replica. Thus, the synchronization process has converged.
- the following flow diagrams depict various example processes for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- the versions of a remote change are checked with respect to the local knowledge. If the change is obsolete it is disregarded. If the remote change is a tombstone marked for resurrection and the local entity is alive, all change unit versions are updated and the prior change update version (CUV) is set as the based on version for each change unit. If the remote change is a tombstone marked for resurrection and the local entity is a tombstone that is not marked for resurrection, the remote change is applied.
- the remote change is a tombstone marked for resurrection and the local entity is a tombstone marked for resurrection
- one of the versions is deterministically picked as the winner, and the change associated with the winner is kept.
- the replica having the smallest replica ID is chosen as the winner.
- An update-delete conflict also is detected if the remote change is alive, the local entity is a tombstone not marked for resurrection, and the local tombstone's deletion version is not know to the sender. If the remote change is alive and the local entity is a tombstone, one of the following is true. The local tombstone's deleted version is known to the sender, all local tombstones based on deletion versions are know to sender, or the local tombstone is marked for resurrection. If the remote change includes all change units, the entity is resurrected.
- a remote change is a tombstone, the tombstone's deletion version is not known, the tombstone's is not marked for resurrection, the tombstone is no based on deletion versions, or at least one of its based on deletion versions is not known, the following four scenarios could arise. If the local entity is alive and at least one change unit version is not known to the sender, an update-delete conflict is reported. If the local entity is alive and at least one change unit version is not known to sender, an update-delete conflict is reported. If the local entity is a tombstone, the tombstone's deletion version is not known to the sender, and the tombstone is marked for resurrection, the remote change is disregarded.
- the local entity is a tombstone, the tombstone's deletion version is not known to the sender, and the tombstone is not marked for resurrection, one of the versions is deterministically picked as the winner, and the change associated with the winner is kept. In an example embodiment, the replica having the smallest replica ID is chosen as the winner. If a local entity is a tombstone and its deletion version is known to sender, or all of its based on deletion versions are known to sender, the change is applied.
- the remote change is a tombstone, the tombstone's deletion version is not known, the tombstone is not marked for resurrection, and all of the tombstone's based on deletion versions are known, the following for scenarios can arise. If the local entity is alive, the remote change is disregarded. If the local entity is a tombstone and its deletion version is known to sender, the remote change is applied. If the local entity is a tombstone, the tombstone's deletion version is not known to the sender, and the tombstone is marked for resurrection, the local change is kept and it is assigned a new deletion version setting based on deletion versions to the prior deletion version. Keep the marked for resurrection set.
- the tombstone's deletion version is not known to the sender, the tombstone is not marked for resurrection, and all the tombstone's based on deletion versions are known to the sender, one of the versions is deterministically picked as the winner, and the change associated with the winner is kept.
- the replica having the smallest replica ID is chosen as the winner.
- FIG. 10 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- An update to an entity in a replica is detected at step 12 .
- a deletion to the same entity on a different replica is detected at step 14 .
- the update and deletion are detected during the synchronization process between the replicas. It is determined that an update-delete conflict exists at step 16 .
- a processor or the like on which one of the replicas is located can receive indications of the deletion and the update and make the determination that the indications constitute an update-delete conflict.
- the local replica receives either an indication that the deletion of an entity was erroneous (e.g., in the form of a mark to resurrect), or no indication that the deletion was erroneous, in which case the update will typically win.
- the conflict is resolved in accordance with the conflict resolution policy in effect. If the conflict resolution policy comprises an update wins policy (step 18 ) the conflict is resolved in favor of the update at step 20 . If the conflict resolution policy comprises a remote wins policy (step 18 ) the conflict is resolved in favor of the event (e.g., deletion or update) that took place in the remote replica at step 26 . If the conflict resolution policy comprises a local wins policy (step 18 ) the conflict is resolved in favor of the event (e.g., deletion or update) that took place in the local replica at step 22 . If the conflict resolution policy comprises a last writer wins policy (step 18 ) the conflict is resolved in favor of the most recent event (e.g., deletion or update) that took place at step 28 . If the conflict resolution policy comprises a delete wins policy (step 18 ) the conflict is resolved in favor of the deletion at step 24 .
- the conflict resolution policy comprises a delete wins policy (step 18 ) the conflict is resolved in favor of the deletion at step 24 .
- FIG. 11 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving the conflict in favor of the update.
- a new version of the change unit that was updated is assigned.
- the new version includes a based on version as described above.
- the deleted entity is marked for resurrection at step 32 .
- the deleted entity is resurrected to the previous undeleted version at step 34 .
- the updated entity is replicated on all replicas at step 36 .
- FIG. 12 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving the conflict in favor of the remote replica. It is determined, at step 38 , if the event that occurred at the remote replica was a deletion or an update. If it is determined (step 38 ) that the event was an update, the change unit that was updated is assigned a new version at step 40 . The new version includes a based on version as described above. The deleted entity is marked for resurrection at step 42 . The deleted entity is resurrected to the previous undeleted version at step 44 . The deleted entity is resurrected at the compound item level, if appropriate. That is, if any child entities were deleted, the child entities are resurrected. The updated entity is replicated on all replicas at step 46 .
- the entity is deleted at the compound item level. It is determined, at step 48 , if the entity has any children entities in its hierarchy. If no children entities exist in the deleted entity's hierarchy (step 48 ), the entity is deleted at step 50 . If children entities do exist in the entity's hierarchy, the entity and all its children entities are deleted at step 52 .
- FIG. 13 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving the conflict in favor of the local replica.
- the process depicted in FIG. 13 is similar to the process depicted in FIG. 12 . It is determined, at step 54 , if the event that occurred at the local replica was a deletion or an update. If it is determined (step 54 ) that the event was an update, the change unit that was updated is assigned a new version at step 56 . The new version includes a based on version as described above.
- the deleted entity is marked for resurrection at step 58 .
- the deleted entity is resurrected to the previous undeleted version at step 60 .
- the deleted entity is resurrected at the compound item level, if appropriate.
- the child entities are resurrected.
- the updated entity is replicated on all replicas at step 62 . If, at step 54 , it is determined that the event that took place at the local replica was a deletion, the entity is deleted at the compound item level. It is determined, at step 64 , if the entity has any children entities in its hierarchy. If no children entities exist in the deleted entity's hierarchy (step 64 ), the entity is deleted at step 66 . If children entities do exist in the entity's hierarchy, the entity and all its children entities are deleted at step 68 .
- FIG. 14 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving the conflict in favor of the most recent event.
- the process depicted in FIG. 14 is similar to the process depicted in FIG. 12 and FIG. 13 .
- the new version includes a based on version as described above.
- the deleted entity is marked for resurrection at step 74 .
- the deleted entity is resurrected to the previous undeleted version at step 76 .
- the deleted entity is resurrected at the compound item level, if appropriate.
- the child entities are resurrected.
- the updated entity is replicated on all replicas at step 78 . If, at step 70 , it is determined that the deletion occurred more recently than the update, the entity is deleted at the compound item level. It is determined, at step 80 , if the entity has any children entities in its hierarchy. If no children entities exist in the deleted entity's hierarchy (step 80 ), the entity is deleted at step 82 . If children entities do exist in the entity's hierarchy, the entity and all its children entities are deleted at step 84 .
- FIG. 15 is a flow diagram of an example process for resolving the conflict in favor of the deletion.
- the entity is deleted at the compound item level. It is determined, at step 86 , if the entity has any children entities in its hierarchy. If no children entities exist in the deleted entity's hierarchy (step 86 ), the entity is deleted at step 90 . If children entities do exist in the entity's hierarchy, the entity and all its children entities are deleted at step 88 .
- FIG. 16 is a diagram of an exemplary computing device 92 for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- the computing device 92 can be implemented as a client processor and/or a server processor.
- each replica being synchronized can reside on a respective computing device 92 .
- multiple replicas can reside on a computing dive 92 .
- the computing device 92 comprises a processing portion 110 , a memory portion 112 , and an input/output portion 98 .
- the processing portion 94 , memory portion 96 , and input/output portion 98 are coupled together (coupling not shown in FIG. 16 ) to allow communications therebetween.
- the computing device 92 is capable of performing the operations associated with resolving update-delete conflicts.
- the processing portion 94 is capable of providing the ability to choose between deleting the entity from the selected replicas or replicating the updated entity on the selected replicas, as described above.
- the memory portion 96 is capable of storing all parameters associated with resolving update-delete conflicts, such as information (e.g., knowledge), pertaining to updated and deleted entities, for example.
- the memory portion 96 stores at least one replica.
- Input/output portion 98 is capable of providing and/or receiving components, as describe above, utilized to resolve update-delete conflicts.
- the input/output portion 98 can provide data to and receive data from another computing device, a storage device, a replica, and/or a data stream.
- the input/output portion 98 is capable of receiving and/or providing an indication that an entity was deleted and that an entity was updated.
- the memory portion 96 can be volatile (such as RAM and/or cache) 100 , non-volatile (such as ROM, flash memory, etc.) 102 , or a combination thereof.
- the computing device 92 can have additional features/functionality.
- the computing device 92 can include additional storage (removable storage 104 and/or non-removable storage 106 ) including, but not limited to, magnetic or optical disks, tape, flash, smart cards or a combination thereof.
- Computer storage media such as memory portion 96 , 100 , 102 , 104 , and 106 , include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data.
- Computer storage media include, but are not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, universal serial bus (USB) compatible memory, smart cards, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by the computing device 92 . Any such computer storage media can be part of the computing device 92 .
- the computing device 92 also can contain communications connection(s) 112 that allow the computing device 92 to communicate with other devices.
- Communications connection(s) 112 is an example of communication media.
- Communication media typically embody computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media.
- modulated data signal means a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal.
- communication media include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media.
- the term computer readable media as used herein includes both storage media and communication media.
- the computing device 92 also can have input device(s) 110 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc.
- Output device(s) 108 such as a display, speakers, printer, etc. also can be included.
- computer system is intended to encompass any and all devices capable of storing and processing information and/or capable of using the stored information to control the behavior or execution of the device itself, regardless of whether such devices are electronic, mechanical, logical, or virtual in nature.
- the various techniques described herein can be implemented in connection with hardware or software or, where appropriate, with a combination of both.
- the methods and apparatuses for resolving update-delete conflicts can take the form of program code (i.e., instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- the program(s) can be implemented in assembly or machine language, if desired.
- the language can be a compiled or interpreted language, and combined with hardware implementations.
- the methods and apparatuses for resolving update-delete conflicts also can be practiced via communications embodied in the form of program code that is transmitted over some transmission medium, such as over electrical wiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via any other form of transmission, wherein, when the program code is received and loaded into and executed by a machine, such as an EPROM, a gate array, a programmable logic device (PLD), a client computer, or the like, the machine becomes an apparatus for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- a machine such as an EPROM, a gate array, a programmable logic device (PLD), a client computer, or the like, the machine becomes an apparatus for resolving update-delete conflicts.
- PLD programmable logic device
- the program code When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the program code combines with the processor to provide a unique apparatus that operates to invoke the functionality of resolving update-delete conflicts. Additionally, any storage techniques used in connection with resolving update-delete conflicts can invariably be a combination of hardware and software.
Abstract
Description
Claims (16)
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/444,180 US7769727B2 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2006-05-31 | Resolving update-delete conflicts |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/444,180 US7769727B2 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2006-05-31 | Resolving update-delete conflicts |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20070282914A1 US20070282914A1 (en) | 2007-12-06 |
US7769727B2 true US7769727B2 (en) | 2010-08-03 |
Family
ID=38791637
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US11/444,180 Active 2028-07-23 US7769727B2 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2006-05-31 | Resolving update-delete conflicts |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US7769727B2 (en) |
Cited By (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20080071731A1 (en) * | 2006-09-14 | 2008-03-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and Method For Automatically Refining Ontology Within Specific Context |
US8301994B1 (en) * | 2008-09-12 | 2012-10-30 | Adobe Systems Incorporated | Synchronizing multiple hierarchal data structures |
US20140075323A1 (en) * | 2012-09-13 | 2014-03-13 | Konica Minolta, Inc. | Operation controlling method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and operation controlling apparatus |
US9286162B2 (en) | 2012-02-02 | 2016-03-15 | Netapp, Inc. | System and method for guaranteeing consistent data synchronization from a volatile data source |
US9471555B1 (en) | 2015-06-19 | 2016-10-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimizing update operations in hierarchically structured documents |
US9495218B2 (en) * | 2015-02-27 | 2016-11-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Efficient parallel processing of a network with conflict constraints between nodes |
US10846302B1 (en) | 2018-03-02 | 2020-11-24 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Replication event ordering using an external data store |
Families Citing this family (37)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JP4573277B2 (en) * | 2007-06-06 | 2010-11-04 | 株式会社アテナテレコムラボ | Database conflict resolution method |
US20170177647A1 (en) * | 2008-06-04 | 2017-06-22 | Kunio Kamimura | Parallel database editing |
US8412676B2 (en) * | 2008-10-21 | 2013-04-02 | Microsoft Corporation | Forgetting items with knowledge based synchronization |
US10303787B2 (en) * | 2008-10-21 | 2019-05-28 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Forgetting items with knowledge based synchronization |
US8572022B2 (en) * | 2010-03-02 | 2013-10-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Automatic synchronization conflict resolution |
CA2795917A1 (en) * | 2010-04-12 | 2011-10-20 | Google Inc. | Real-time collaboration in a hosted word processor |
EP2558959A1 (en) | 2010-04-12 | 2013-02-20 | Google, Inc. | Collaborative cursors in a hosted word processor |
US8838087B1 (en) | 2010-09-06 | 2014-09-16 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Provisioning system and methods for interfaceless phone |
US8583091B1 (en) | 2010-09-06 | 2013-11-12 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Dynamic loading, unloading, and caching of alternate complete interfaces |
US8559933B1 (en) | 2011-02-08 | 2013-10-15 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for ID platform |
US8244277B1 (en) | 2011-02-16 | 2012-08-14 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Device experience adaptation based on schedules and events |
US9123062B1 (en) | 2011-02-18 | 2015-09-01 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Ad sponsored interface pack |
US9043446B1 (en) | 2011-03-10 | 2015-05-26 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Mirroring device interface components for content sharing |
US8972592B1 (en) | 2011-05-27 | 2015-03-03 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Extending an interface pack to a computer system |
US8577334B1 (en) | 2011-06-16 | 2013-11-05 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Restricted testing access for electronic device |
US9213718B1 (en) * | 2011-06-22 | 2015-12-15 | Emc Corporation | Synchronized file management across multiple disparate endpoints |
US8850516B1 (en) | 2011-06-22 | 2014-09-30 | Emc Corporation | Virtual private cloud that provides enterprise grade functionality and compliance |
US9619810B1 (en) | 2011-10-11 | 2017-04-11 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Zone architecture for dynamic targeted content creation |
US8527462B1 (en) | 2012-02-09 | 2013-09-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Database point-in-time restore and as-of query |
US8843122B1 (en) | 2012-06-29 | 2014-09-23 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Mobile phone controls preprocessor |
US9413839B2 (en) | 2012-07-31 | 2016-08-09 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Traffic management of third party applications |
US9183412B2 (en) | 2012-08-10 | 2015-11-10 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Systems and methods for provisioning and using multiple trusted security zones on an electronic device |
US9442709B1 (en) | 2012-10-24 | 2016-09-13 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Transition experience during loading and updating an interface and applications pack |
US10026064B2 (en) | 2013-09-13 | 2018-07-17 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Automatically recommending updates based on stored lifecycle information |
US9830142B2 (en) | 2013-09-13 | 2017-11-28 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Automatic installation of selected updates in multiple environments |
US9626176B2 (en) | 2013-09-13 | 2017-04-18 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Update installer with technical impact analysis |
US9665359B2 (en) * | 2013-09-13 | 2017-05-30 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Automatically resolving conflicts after installation of selected updates in a computer system |
US9513888B1 (en) | 2014-01-30 | 2016-12-06 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Virtual preloads |
US9489442B1 (en) * | 2014-02-04 | 2016-11-08 | Emc Corporation | Prevention of circular event publication in publish/subscribe model using path vector |
US9491054B2 (en) * | 2014-06-06 | 2016-11-08 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Network-state management service |
US9602351B2 (en) | 2014-06-06 | 2017-03-21 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Proactive handling of network faults |
US9887878B2 (en) | 2014-06-06 | 2018-02-06 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Dynamic scheduling of network updates |
US10412163B2 (en) | 2015-01-30 | 2019-09-10 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Computer system, distributed object sharing method, and edge node |
US9483253B1 (en) | 2015-04-30 | 2016-11-01 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Methods for customization of default applications on a mobile communication device |
US10097622B1 (en) * | 2015-09-11 | 2018-10-09 | EMC IP Holding Company LLC | Method and system for communication using published events |
US10866963B2 (en) | 2017-12-28 | 2020-12-15 | Dropbox, Inc. | File system authentication |
US11853321B1 (en) * | 2018-06-14 | 2023-12-26 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Data replication without in-place tombstones |
Citations (24)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5485607A (en) | 1993-02-05 | 1996-01-16 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Concurrency-control method and apparatus in a database management system utilizing key-valued locking |
US5710922A (en) | 1993-06-02 | 1998-01-20 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Method for synchronizing and archiving information between computer systems |
US5806075A (en) | 1993-09-24 | 1998-09-08 | Oracle Corporation | Method and apparatus for peer-to-peer data replication |
US6065017A (en) * | 1997-12-31 | 2000-05-16 | Novell, Inc. | Apparatus and method for identifying and recovering from database errors |
US20020032883A1 (en) * | 2000-05-02 | 2002-03-14 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method and system for providing cluster replicated checkpoint services |
US6363387B1 (en) | 1998-10-20 | 2002-03-26 | Sybase, Inc. | Database system providing methodology for enhancing concurrency using row update bit and deferred locking |
US6604102B2 (en) | 1999-07-06 | 2003-08-05 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, Lp. | System and method for performing database operations on a continuous stream of tuples |
US6681226B2 (en) | 2001-01-30 | 2004-01-20 | Gemstone Systems, Inc. | Selective pessimistic locking for a concurrently updateable database |
US20040024795A1 (en) | 2000-04-10 | 2004-02-05 | Hugh Hind | System and method for synchronizing data records between multiple databases |
US20040249870A1 (en) * | 2003-03-06 | 2004-12-09 | Zulfikar Jeevanjee | Database replication system |
US20050044108A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-02-24 | Ashish Shah | Systems and methods for providing synchronization services for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050044187A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-02-24 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for providing conflict handling for peer-to-peer synchronization of units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050050054A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-03 | Clark Quentin J. | Storage platform for organizing, searching, and sharing data |
US20050050073A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-03 | Bekim Demiroski | Systems and methods for extensions and inheritance for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050050537A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-03 | Thompson J. Patrick | Systems and method for representing relationships between units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050055380A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-10 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for separating units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system from their physical organization |
US20050125621A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-06-09 | Ashish Shah | Systems and methods for the implementation of a synchronization schemas for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050171960A1 (en) | 2004-01-30 | 2005-08-04 | Lomet David B. | Concurrency control for B-trees with node deletion |
US20050223047A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-10-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for synchronizing computer systems through an intermediary file system share or device |
US7000234B1 (en) | 2000-01-20 | 2006-02-14 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Maintaining a double-ended queue as a linked-list with sentinel nodes and delete flags with concurrent non-blocking insert and remove operations using a double compare-and-swap primitive |
US7024430B1 (en) | 1998-12-08 | 2006-04-04 | Starfish Software, Inc. | Method and system for implementing a filter in a data synchronization system |
US20060106879A1 (en) * | 2004-11-16 | 2006-05-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Conflict resolution in a synchronization framework |
US20060200533A1 (en) * | 2005-03-03 | 2006-09-07 | Holenstein Bruce D | High availability designated winner data replication |
US7483923B2 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2009-01-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for providing relational and hierarchical synchronization services for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
-
2006
- 2006-05-31 US US11/444,180 patent/US7769727B2/en active Active
Patent Citations (27)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5485607A (en) | 1993-02-05 | 1996-01-16 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Concurrency-control method and apparatus in a database management system utilizing key-valued locking |
US5710922A (en) | 1993-06-02 | 1998-01-20 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Method for synchronizing and archiving information between computer systems |
US5806075A (en) | 1993-09-24 | 1998-09-08 | Oracle Corporation | Method and apparatus for peer-to-peer data replication |
US6065017A (en) * | 1997-12-31 | 2000-05-16 | Novell, Inc. | Apparatus and method for identifying and recovering from database errors |
US6363387B1 (en) | 1998-10-20 | 2002-03-26 | Sybase, Inc. | Database system providing methodology for enhancing concurrency using row update bit and deferred locking |
US7024430B1 (en) | 1998-12-08 | 2006-04-04 | Starfish Software, Inc. | Method and system for implementing a filter in a data synchronization system |
US6604102B2 (en) | 1999-07-06 | 2003-08-05 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, Lp. | System and method for performing database operations on a continuous stream of tuples |
US7000234B1 (en) | 2000-01-20 | 2006-02-14 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Maintaining a double-ended queue as a linked-list with sentinel nodes and delete flags with concurrent non-blocking insert and remove operations using a double compare-and-swap primitive |
US20040024795A1 (en) | 2000-04-10 | 2004-02-05 | Hugh Hind | System and method for synchronizing data records between multiple databases |
US20020032883A1 (en) * | 2000-05-02 | 2002-03-14 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method and system for providing cluster replicated checkpoint services |
US6681226B2 (en) | 2001-01-30 | 2004-01-20 | Gemstone Systems, Inc. | Selective pessimistic locking for a concurrently updateable database |
US20040249870A1 (en) * | 2003-03-06 | 2004-12-09 | Zulfikar Jeevanjee | Database replication system |
US20050050054A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-03 | Clark Quentin J. | Storage platform for organizing, searching, and sharing data |
US20050256907A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-11-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for the utilization of metadata for synchronization optimization |
US20050050537A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-03 | Thompson J. Patrick | Systems and method for representing relationships between units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050055380A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-10 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for separating units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system from their physical organization |
US20050125621A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-06-09 | Ashish Shah | Systems and methods for the implementation of a synchronization schemas for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US7483915B2 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2009-01-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and method for representing relationships between units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050223047A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-10-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for synchronizing computer systems through an intermediary file system share or device |
US20050050073A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-03-03 | Bekim Demiroski | Systems and methods for extensions and inheritance for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050044187A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-02-24 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for providing conflict handling for peer-to-peer synchronization of units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050044108A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2005-02-24 | Ashish Shah | Systems and methods for providing synchronization services for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US7483923B2 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2009-01-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for providing relational and hierarchical synchronization services for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20070088725A1 (en) * | 2003-08-21 | 2007-04-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for extensions and inheritance for units of information manageable by a hardware/software interface system |
US20050171960A1 (en) | 2004-01-30 | 2005-08-04 | Lomet David B. | Concurrency control for B-trees with node deletion |
US20060106879A1 (en) * | 2004-11-16 | 2006-05-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Conflict resolution in a synchronization framework |
US20060200533A1 (en) * | 2005-03-03 | 2006-09-07 | Holenstein Bruce D | High availability designated winner data replication |
Non-Patent Citations (6)
Title |
---|
"Interface SyncResolver", Java(TM) 2 Platform Standard Ed. 5.0, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/javax/sql/rowset/spi/SyncResolver.html, Apr. 11, 2006, 10 pages. |
"Interface SyncResolver", Java™ 2 Platform Standard Ed. 5.0, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/javax/sql/rowset/spi/SyncResolver.html, Apr. 11, 2006, 10 pages. |
Lam, F. et al., "Efficient Synchronization for Mobile XML Data", CIKM, 2002, http://delivery.acm.org, 153-160. |
Manber, U. et al., "Concurrency Control in a Dynamic Search Structure", ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Sep. 1984, 9(3), 439-455. |
Oracle, "Oracle Database Lite", Jun. 29, 2004. * |
Stephane Gancarski, Hubert Naacke, Esther Pacitti and Patrick Valduriez, "Parallel Processing with Autonomous Databases in a Cluster System", Sep. 11, 2002. * |
Cited By (16)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20080071731A1 (en) * | 2006-09-14 | 2008-03-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and Method For Automatically Refining Ontology Within Specific Context |
US7925637B2 (en) * | 2006-09-14 | 2011-04-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for automatically refining ontology within specific context |
US8301994B1 (en) * | 2008-09-12 | 2012-10-30 | Adobe Systems Incorporated | Synchronizing multiple hierarchal data structures |
US9286162B2 (en) | 2012-02-02 | 2016-03-15 | Netapp, Inc. | System and method for guaranteeing consistent data synchronization from a volatile data source |
US20140075323A1 (en) * | 2012-09-13 | 2014-03-13 | Konica Minolta, Inc. | Operation controlling method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and operation controlling apparatus |
US9294360B2 (en) * | 2012-09-13 | 2016-03-22 | Konica Minolta, Inc. | Operation controlling method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and operation controlling apparatus |
US9608868B2 (en) | 2015-02-27 | 2017-03-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | Efficient parallel processing of a network with conflict constraints between nodes |
US9495218B2 (en) * | 2015-02-27 | 2016-11-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Efficient parallel processing of a network with conflict constraints between nodes |
US9853866B2 (en) | 2015-02-27 | 2017-12-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Efficient parallel processing of a network with conflict constraints between nodes |
US9985843B2 (en) | 2015-02-27 | 2018-05-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Efficient parallel processing of a network with conflict constraints between nodes |
US9471555B1 (en) | 2015-06-19 | 2016-10-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimizing update operations in hierarchically structured documents |
US9747264B2 (en) | 2015-06-19 | 2017-08-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimizing update operations in hierarchically structured documents |
US9934209B2 (en) | 2015-06-19 | 2018-04-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimizing update operations in hierarchically structured documents |
US9934210B2 (en) | 2015-06-19 | 2018-04-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimizing update operations in hierarchically structured documents |
US10846302B1 (en) | 2018-03-02 | 2020-11-24 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Replication event ordering using an external data store |
US11514077B2 (en) | 2018-03-02 | 2022-11-29 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Replication event ordering using an external data store |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20070282914A1 (en) | 2007-12-06 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7769727B2 (en) | Resolving update-delete conflicts | |
US11704336B2 (en) | Efficient filename storage and retrieval | |
US20100030818A1 (en) | System and method for applying once a transaction delivered in a message published asynchronously in a distributed database | |
US20160321295A1 (en) | Scalable Distributed Metadata File-System using Key-Value Stores | |
US7031973B2 (en) | Accounting for references between a client and server that use disparate e-mail storage formats | |
CN107077491B (en) | Online mode and data transformation | |
US10747643B2 (en) | System for debugging a client synchronization service | |
US20110185136A1 (en) | Moving large dynamic datasets via incremental change synchronization | |
US8073875B2 (en) | Managing deleted directory entries | |
US10970193B2 (en) | Debugging a client synchronization service | |
US20100293143A1 (en) | Initialization of database for synchronization | |
US7428544B1 (en) | Systems and methods for mapping e-mail records between a client and server that use disparate storage formats | |
US11853318B1 (en) | Database with tombstone access | |
US20220164311A1 (en) | Weak references of allocated logical clusters | |
CN113076325A (en) | Large-field data processing method, device, equipment and storage medium | |
KR20210033880A (en) | Method, server, and computer readable medium for index recovery using index redo log |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION, WASHINGTON Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SIVAPRAGASAM, MUHUNTHAN;CAO, DONG;HUDIS, IRENA;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:019659/0799;SIGNING DATES FROM 20060605 TO 20070803 Owner name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION, WASHINGTON Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SIVAPRAGASAM, MUHUNTHAN;CAO, DONG;HUDIS, IRENA;AND OTHERS;SIGNING DATES FROM 20060605 TO 20070803;REEL/FRAME:019659/0799 |
|
STCF | Information on status: patent grant |
Free format text: PATENTED CASE |
|
FEPP | Fee payment procedure |
Free format text: PAYOR NUMBER ASSIGNED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: ASPN); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
FPAY | Fee payment |
Year of fee payment: 4 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC, WASHINGTON Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:MICROSOFT CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:034542/0001 Effective date: 20141014 |
|
MAFP | Maintenance fee payment |
Free format text: PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEE, 8TH YEAR, LARGE ENTITY (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: M1552) Year of fee payment: 8 |
|
MAFP | Maintenance fee payment |
Free format text: PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEE, 12TH YEAR, LARGE ENTITY (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: M1553); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY Year of fee payment: 12 |